From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Iordan Iordanov Subject: Re: debian software raid1 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:03:27 -0400 Message-ID: <4DADB24F.2030300@cdf.toronto.edu> References: <1303215166.2809.8.camel@valio> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?TWF0aGlhcyBCdXLDqW4=?= Cc: b2 , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Hey guys, On 04/19/11 08:25, Mathias Bur=C3=A9n wrote: > http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/238 > > Plenty of articles on the net on how to do that. There is a lot of information, but also, I suspect there is a lot of=20 disagreement. One thing that I could not find a definitive answer on wa= s=20 the question of whether or not to mirror swap. There are articles that propose mirroring partitions independently=20 (rather than the entire disk), and not mirroring swap, but adding two=20 swap partitions with equal priority. On the other hand, there are peopl= e=20 who point out that in the event where one of the disks in the mirror=20 dies, the machine may cease to function, because a part of its "memory"= =20 will have disappeared. However, making swap part of the mirror opens a=20 whole new can of worms. For instance, could there be a deadlock=20 possibility (for example after a suspend/resume cycle) where mdadm is=20 waiting for something which is swapped out onto swap which is mirrored? It would be nice to have a discussion among people who have experience=20 with all of this. Cheers, Iordan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html